Efforts to deter corporate crime have been thwarted by difficulties in

identifying and apprehending perpetrators, and in determining

appropriate terms for liability. Sara Seck's article, "Home State

Responsibility and Local Communities: The Case of Global Mining," offers

an important commentary on the question of corporate social responsibility

in a global era, and the corporation's relationship to state sovereignty,

international relations, and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Drawing on

Canada as a case study, Seck attempts to establish clear legal norms and

processes that would hold Canadian corporations accountable for human

rights violation. She argues that the implementation of home state

regulation in Canada (and elsewhere) will provide strong incentives for

Canadian mining companies to conduct their overseas business ventures in

socially and environmentally responsible ways.

In Part II, I will summarize Seck's argument, focusing on her proposal

to pursue corporate violations abroad through home state jurisdiction. In

Part III, I will evaluate Seck's proposal, considering the benefits and

drawbacks to this approach toward promoting accountability for corporate

crimes. In Part IV, I offer my own alternative to home state regulation: the

establishment of an international court that has jurisdiction over corporate

crimes. I conclude by proposing a realistic assessment of promoting

accountability for corporate crimes committed overseas. Because Seck's

argument is expansive, I will limit my focus of this response to the question

of jurisdiction over corporate crimes and what forum would most

effectively address them.